New way to do war

[Volstag]

I'm not sure if you can get much more "brutal" than hewing limbs with swords, and smashing skulls with war hammers. In other words: I'd rather be a combatant in the MA, than the AA.

-V

 

[Elgalad]

Okay, let me start this post by stating emphatically that this is not meant as a flame to anyone. Rather, I am curious about some things:

We are not die hards but purists.

I stand corrected, I shall no longer refer to purists as diehards!

Anything that alters the fundamental foundation of the CIV series is bad... including real time game play. That system rewards the quick over the "reflex challenged".

In another post I also said I was against any efforts to change the CIV 4 to a so called 'real time strategy' game. I agree that it should be kept turn-based because it is one of the last successful TBS franchises left. However, did you really mean the first sentence where you suggested that any changes in the foundation of Civ would be bad? On that note I would very strongly disagree. The case could be made that Civ 2 was as different from Civ 1 as any two games can be. They shared the name 'civilization', they shared a basic theme: be the first player (civilization) to take over the world, research and build the techs to reach another star, convince the majority of other nations to vote for you in the UN, or just survive and have a high score at the end of 6,000 years. Aside from that.. the graphic improvements, added diplomatic and espionage features, new sciences/technologies, military units, etc were certainly changes aplenty. When Civ 3 came out, the evolution from Civ 2 was much greater even than the first one. Now we have culture effects, civ traits and unique units, strategic resources, etc. One could argue that the basic foundation of the original Civ 1 has been changed drastically! But enough remains of the game that it is still recognizable as 'Civilization'.**

There are a number of games already on the market had does similar stuff and CIV should be focused on what CIV does best, not wasting resources tapping into the RTS field.

However, I do like the idea of cities surrendering when faced with overwhelming force.

Again, I dont recall suggesting that Civ should become an RTS game. I did say that I liked what PETEdaVIKING suggested about making combat tactical. Now at the time since he had mentioned Age of Wonders (another great game!), that was what was going through my mind. I was also thinking of some other great tactical TURN-based games, like Jagged Alliance, X-Com, Age of Wonders, Master of Magic and Fallout Tactics, and considered the notion that a full on strategic turn-based combat system might work for Civilization 4. I've always been a bit off put by the combat in all three versions of Civ. Military unit A (tank, airplane, swordsman, archer) attacks military unit B (spearman, rifleman, warrior, helicopter) and woohoo, a little nice animation, some sound effects and bam, one is dead, one is usually wounded, but in truth it was really all about numbers Okay look, I find nothing rewarding about combat when all it means is I've moved my (pawns, knights, bishops, etc) to the right spot at the right time and they have 3 attack strength but the opponent only has 2 defense and they're in clear terrain... That may be 'strategic' in the most loosely defined sense of that word but there is nothing whatsoever tactical about it. I want to be able to line my infantry up, to use my archers and artillery, to outflank my foe with my cavalry! Current system just lacks imho.

Now other games have offered the option to allow combat to be 'strategic' or 'tactical' and usually when they give that choice it just means this - Strategic: Let the AI tell you the results. Tactical: You move your side's forces, the AI moves theirs, the battle is graphic. There's no reason why any change (read IMPROVEMENT) to the combat system in Civ 4 couldn't have this option available for you di..er Purists

Anyway, I hope I've explained myself a little better. Feel free to flame if you must, but I have to ask this. If you Purists are so dead set on keeping Civ 4 just like Civ 3, why are you posting on this Suggestions forum at all? Wouldn't you be happier just playing Civ 3 the way it is?

-Elgalad

 

[sir_schwick]

Here is how to solve both the logistics, MM, and disjointed feel of the Civ combat system.

1) Military units now are organized into battle-groups, free organization tools that appear whenever you need them.
2) During the turn you decide the destination you want your units going too. You then get a pop-up telling you how many turns it will take to get there. Military battle-groups will usually have range trouble, especially when travelling into un-mapped territory.
3) You map territory by having Map Making, and a scout unit(everybody can build them now). You send your scouts on 'expeditions' to map out territory. Technology improves mapping efforts over time.
4) WHen units move, they have an interaction zone which is at least 1 square in radius, could be more. Units whose IZs overlap might have an encounter like below.
4) Once all moves are planned out for each player, they are executed simultaneously. If contact occurs between you and a foreign unit, you are asked how to handle teh situation(attack/hail/hide/defensive stance/fortify).
5) When figureing out which square you will be on after moving, the battle-group with the most initiative goes first. Initiative is a combination of familiarity with territory, speed, and stance.
6) Attacks are are considered a form of moving, such as 'move to attack this city' and that move is figured the same way as non-attack moves.
7) Roads allow an unlimited distance 1-turn transfer to another city along the road.
8) RR allow you to draw units quickly to respond to attacks against cities anywhere along unharmed track.
9) One battlegroup per square, but multiple can move 'through' the same square at the same moment, allies included.

 

[Elgalad]

I like the ideas, Schwick, particularly allowing allies safe movement through the same area. I'd add also the possibility that if the diplomatic system can be changed to incorporate some sort of war alliance (another form of pact agreement), perhaps the senior member of the alliance could combine allies into his battlegroup. Obviously this requires a modicum of trust, but there have been real life examples of this, particularly during WW2, but also in Desert Storm and the Iraqi Liberation.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The case could be made that Civ 2 was as different from Civ 1 as any two games can be.

The case could also be made that Oregon is more similar to Rwanda than to Washington. It's however an exceedingly weak case. You're not seriously suggesting that the differences 'tween CivI and CivII are comparable to those 'tween either and Doom, are you? Or even either and Panzer General?

Fact is, the basics of cities, labourers and specialists, units and combat, research, wonders and improvements, food/shields/commerce, and governments have remained intact since CivI. The changes in CivII and CivII are overwhelmingly refinements and additions.

 

[Elgalad]

Noone is suggesting that Civilization should become a first person shooter. What I think many people who post here Are suggesting is that adding new features does not have to mean changing the essence of the Civ Series. Removing trade caravans from Civ 2 and incorporating trade into an improved diplomacy system was an improvement in Civ 3. Adding strategic and luxury resources was a great added feature as well. Adding Culture was a huge change. Yet by the logic I have read in this and other posts from the "Purists', such changes should never have occurred since they violated the basic: 3 resource, 6000 year, turn-based, building/wargame, multi-nation (only real world of course) paradigm. I have to ask again, if some folks do not want to see Civilization Evolve, why do they bother naysaying those that do? They already have 3 games they should be happy with, since they have already been declared 'Pure'.

-Elgalad

Incidentally, where was the Purists' outcry when they eliminated Wonder Movies in Civ 3?

 

[Garry Meyer]

What I did was changed all the strengths, movements, and so on with every unit. After about a year of messing around like this trying to achieve a more realistic results has happened. I just played a game I created and it was the best single player game I have ever played. The AI was changed as well of course to be stronger and tougher than I making it more sporting. It was great to watch all the pieces involved. Tanks going after cities and other units. Bombers attacking the border cities, not just one or two but several. Packs of land units taking on strong holds trying to weaken the human player. And in return you think I have made it to where you kick back and wait for a few until the AI uses all it's units. Not a chance. The deployments I saw the AI was fantastic. If I didn't know better, I was watching a skilled player taking me on and kicking my rear end all over the map. I had to fall back, reinforce my units, and went after them just to get my butt kicked again. This game has been going on for weeks now. Neither I nor the AI has gained or loss an inch.
My point is this people. You mess with the editor and adjust the strengths and movements and so on you can turn that game into a spectacular play. It has the ability to be adjusted to give you the war's you want. I can not wait for civ4...

 

[sir_schwick]

What I did was changed all the strengths, movements, and so on with every unit. After about a year of messing around like this trying to achieve a more realistic results has happened. I just played a game I created and it was the best single player game I have ever played. The AI was changed as well of course to be stronger and tougher than I making it more sporting. It was great to watch all the pieces involved. Tanks going after cities and other units. Bombers attacking the border cities, not just one or two but several. Packs of land units taking on strong holds trying to weaken the human player. And in return you think I have made it to where you kick back and wait for a few until the AI uses all it's units. Not a chance. The deployments I saw the AI was fantastic. If I didn't know better, I was watching a skilled player taking me on and kicking my rear end all over the map. I had to fall back, reinforce my units, and went after them just to get my butt kicked again. This game has been going on for weeks now. Neither I nor the AI has gained or loss an inch.
My point is this people. You mess with the editor and adjust the strengths and movements and so on you can turn that game into a spectacular play. It has the ability to be adjusted to give you the war's you want. I can not wait for civ4...

How did you make these change in the AI? I am suprised that if a gamer could get it right, that Firaxis couldn't, but either way good job.

 

[mumblipegg]

This is my first post, so hopefully I don't break any rules...

So I LOVE Civ, and think it's a great game, but honestly, I think the combat stinks. I enjoy RTS games like Age of Empires/Warcraft for the battles, but I agree that Civ should stay away from real-time combat. Civ is all about planning and strategy. But I've played 2 games with "tactical combat" (Age of Wonders 2 and Master of Orion 2). Tactical combat is right up Civ's alley because it's turn based. I especially like age of wonders because the world map is broken into hexes and each hex only allows 8 units. Tactical Combat involves the hex being attacked and any units in the 6 hexes touching that hex. So with a maximum of 56 units involved in the battle, you really have to strategize and diversify your army, rather than just building a ton of tanks and have them all attack one at a time like you do in Civ3. Plus, its awesome to see your catapults lined up behind your archers, who are lined up behind your cavalry. Movement points, hit points, attack/defense ratings, line of sight (for missle units), and city walls all come into play. I think adding this style tactical combat to Civ would be the single greatest improvement they could make to the game. Anyone else tried the tactical combat in Age of Wonders 2? Do you agree with me?

 

[Jon Shafer]

Games which mix strategy and a tactical combat system are notorious for weak AIs.

 

[Garry Meyer]

This is my first post, so hopefully I don't break any rules...

So I LOVE Civ, and think it's a great game, but honestly, I think the combat stinks. I enjoy RTS games like Age of Empires/Warcraft for the battles, but I agree that Civ should stay away from real-time combat. Civ is all about planning and strategy. But I've played 2 games with "tactical combat" (Age of Wonders 2 and Master of Orion 2). Tactical combat is right up Civ's alley because it's turn based. I especially like age of wonders because the world map is broken into hexes and each hex only allows 8 units. Tactical Combat involves the hex being attacked and any units in the 6 hexes touching that hex. So with a maximum of 56 units involved in the battle, you really have to strategize and diversify your army, rather than just building a ton of tanks and have them all attack one at a time like you do in Civ3. Plus, its awesome to see your catapults lined up behind your archers, who are lined up behind your cavalry. Movement points, hit points, attack/defense ratings, line of sight (for missle units), and city walls all come into play. I think adding this style tactical combat to Civ would be the single greatest improvement they could make to the game. Anyone else tried the tactical combat in Age of Wonders 2? Do you agree with me?

I am so happy we have so much to chose from with all these different games. I recall when tennis first came out. Imagine playing just that. Anyways, Civ 4 really has to put out some big surprises. I am sure that most of us feel that way. Because if they fall short on expectations then the other gamers such as yourself and many others that will follow will be buying Wonder 2, Age of Empires/Warcraft, and so on.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, I have played 'Birth of the Federation' hundreds of times and though there are some flaws, they relate more to the diplomacy side of the game than either the AI or combat systems! This is IN SPITE of having a tactical combat system within the turn based game.
The way it worked was VERY simple: EVERYBODY did their movement first then any combats which might have resulted were resolved. The combat itself was turn-based. You set tactics for each of your 'battle groups' then initiated the combat turn. You repeated this until one side won or retreated. At any time, you could hand control of the combat to the computer to resolve, giving you just the results! The thing is that the AI in that game often gave me FAR more of a challenge than in Civ3! It just goes to show, IMHO, that you could have some kind of tactical combat WITHOUT undermining the core nature of the Civ game!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Tholish]

Another vote for tactical zoom. Or rather, Grand Tactical zoom. If you have the "Generalship" tech, any time a battle starts you could choose to go into this mode. Every tile in the area becomes five tiles by five tiles, ever unit becomes three to five units (or less if it was wounded). Otherwise the same as usual, except that units could have different stats. Archers, muskets, or machine guns could have something like a bombard (if the AI was smart enough). Units could have a variety of ranges and movement rates and hit points that led to some real tactical decisions. All units could have a chance of retreating wounded like fast ones do now, so it wouldn't be so much "3 beats 2, you're dead, i'm wounded". There could be a concentration vs dispersion factor with bombardment units attacking all units in the same tile rather than just the top one...

All this could be done without really departing too drastically from the familiar turn basis.

PS. Turn based games are usually one of two types: each turn each player moves any one piece (as in chess), or each turn each player moves all his pieces (as in civ). An alternative is to have over turns and sub turns: each sub turn, each player moves any one unit that he has not moved yet that over turn. Sub turns continue until all units have been moved or "space bar"ed off, at which time a new over turn begins.